Thread: Noam Chomsky: A Linguistic Genius

Ant

Fair enough, my evidence presented in this anti-chomsky rant is hardly reliable or valid enough for publication in an academic journal.

But, I know more than a fair bit about academic research, Ok? (I have taught it at the post-graduate level).

"Good research" begins with a question and then seeks an answer. Chomsky begins with an answer and then attempts to find a way to "prove" the answer is correct. What Chomsky does is called propaganda (Or marketing), not research.

He is slick, he is normally vague enough to ensure he can backtrack when necessary. But

Now, maybe in lingustics he is considered a scholar, but surely you are not claiming that in political issues Chomsky is objective in any accepted sense of the word?

You can believe what you want to believe, but Chomsky is not a political or economics researcher, he does not collect data in a accepted fashion and then look at at it objectively.

He selectively takes second hand reports and twists the information to provide support for his already established conclusions.

If you want to believe what he writes, up to you.

If you find this type of "academic research" credible, believe every word of your phophet regardless of the facts.

But, I hope I have been around the block too many times to let any one regardless of political orientation influence me by lingusitic tricks while ignoring most of the objectively available evidence.

Do you find Chomsky credible because you approve of his methodology or becasue his conslusions fit into your political views?

Dollars to donuts its the latter.

Butterfly

I have read enough of Chomsky to tell you what the conculsion of any of his writing will be

America and everything it stands for is bad. Capitalism-Bad, free-markets, every foreign ploicy decision made by the US government-bad.

That is always his conclusion, the only matter of interest in his writing is to see how he will attempt to "prove" this conclusion in a new context.

Originally Posted by Accidental Ajarn

Ant

Fair enough, my evidence presented in this anti-chomsky rant is hardly reliable or valid enough for publication in an academic journal.

But, I know more than a fair bit about academic research, Ok? (I have taught it at the post-graduate level).

Ok, likewise fair enough. I'm no stranger to research myself for that matter; it's what I'm trained to do.

"Good research" begins with a question and then seeks an answer. Chomsky begins with an answer and then attempts to find a way to "prove" the answer is correct. What Chomsky does is called propaganda (Or marketing), not research.

And herein lies the difference I guess. I fundamentally disagree with your conclusion. I have seen no evidence of what you claim - I would seriously question whether you've actually read and studied his works or if you're reciting others critques of it?

Chomsky does not now and never has presented himself as being anything more than what he is: someone who has formed his own opinions based on the avaliable evidence. You can take or leave those opinions but you're on a bit of a hiding-to-nothing attacking his methodology as somehow inherently biased or flawed. Like him or loath him one thing you cannot dispute is that he's a widely respected academic.

Now, maybe in lingustics he is considered a scholar, but surely you are not claiming that in political issues Chomsky is objective in any accepted sense of the word?

That's a charge that could be levelled at any political commentator from any point on the spectrum.

And there's no "maybe" involved here by the way. Chomsky's considered one of the most premminent scholars of linguistics ever (and most certainly of those alive today).

If you find this type of "academic research" credible, believe every word of your phophet regardless of the facts.

Again with the "prophet" stuff??

Do you find Chomsky credible because you approve of his methodology or becasue his conslusions fit into your political views?

Dollars to donuts its the latter.

Sigh... Do you find Chomsky objectionable because of his methodology or because his conclusions happen to be contrary to your political views?

Originally Posted by Accidental Ajarn

I have read enough of Chomsky to tell you what the conculsion of any of his writing will be

America and everything it stands for is bad. Capitalism-Bad, free-markets, every foreign ploicy decision made by the US government-bad.

so you disagree with his conclusions because they don't match yours ? so why is it his fault ? why not yours for failing to question your own bias and opinions ?

“Do you find Chomsky objectionable because of his methodology or because his conclusions happen to be contrary to your political views?”

My political views on the economy are based on the best available scientific evidence we have. Free-market economies with openness to international trade outperform centrally controlled economies that are protectionist.

Furthermore, all available evidence I have seen (and common sense) shows the democracies have better economic performance and lower levels of violence than do countries that are undemocratic (Yes I know there are exceptions, which is what Chomsky would point out to make his case instead of looking at all the evidence).

Therefore I support the promotion of free market democracies.

Other political issues there are no objective right or wrongs to. I oppose abortions, therefore you can claim I am on the right. I have no objections to gay marriage, therefore you can claim on the left. I support gun rights, therefore I am on the right while I oppose the death penalty (although if anyone can come up with reliable evidence that the death penalty actually deters crime I will reconsider) and I have no problem with legalized drug usage therefore I can be on the left if you like.

I, like Chomsky, initially opposed the war in Iraq, however unlike Chomsky I can see and understand both sides of the issue and I don’t think everyone who disagrees with me is evil nor do I think the majority of people in my country, are bad. We are a democracy and I like some of our decisions and dislike others, but I do not doubt the good intentions of 95% of all Americans regardless of political party.

Chomsky and his ilk spread hatred yet give nothing constructive in return.

But, hatred seems to sell really well these days. Chomsky knows how to satisfy his market and profit from it. Say that for the guy, he is a great salesman.

^ you seem very confused, mixing petty politics, social issues, foreign policies and economic system into one big jar,

" so you disagree with his conclusions because they don't match yours ? "

All available objective evidence shows that free-markets and democracies outperform others, Chomsky claims otherwise. What evidence does Chomsky give that other countries are "better" in an measurable way than free-market democracies?

Easy answer, he gives none.

I disagree with Chomsky becasue what he says is not based on evidence and usually is in support of policies that are know to result in violance and early death of much of the population through poverty.

Poverty reduction has never happened anywhere at anytime by following any path Chomsky has advocated.

However, there have been huge recent improvements in the lives of individuals in many poor regions as they move from Chomsky approved policies to those of free-markets.

I actually want to see a better world, not just enrich myself by feeding into the hatred and disillusions of others.

Chomsky and his ilk spread hatred yet give nothing constructive in return.

But, hatred seems to sell really well these days. Chomsky knows how to satisfy his market and profit from it. Say that for the guy, he is a great salesman.

Then, with all due respect, I think that the issue here is with the auidence, not the message or the messenger. Chomsky does not 'hate' the US, far from it. He's on record as saying that it's his inherent love of the US that drives his criticims. He wants it to be the best that it can be.

Although it is by no means limited to the US it is seemingly more apparent than in other nations for criticims to be thrown back as 'hate'; 'un-patriotic'; or even 'un-American'. It's all very odd.

^^ AA, you haven't read Chomsky obviously, or worse, you read him but you didn't understand the words on anything he said

you are hyperbolizing, there is nothing of substance in your arguments, just lame cliche from the 80s that have been proved wrong many times over,

btw, this is the 21st century in case you missed it

“Then, with all due respect, I think that the issue here is with the audience, not the message or the messenger.”

Yeah, I think so. Seems to me, many of the leaders of the radical left are from the just before my generation and grew up in the 60s and 70s and developed some radical/socialist political ideas in their youth. Many of these people have had a hard time letting go of these ideals as they have aged. The positive aspects of their youthful idealism have been proven unworkable and all this is left is the hatred of the “establishment.” Chomsky caters to this audience, what is Chomsky against? That is fairly easy to identify, but try to find out exactly what he is for is more difficult.

Chomsky is for lightweights who want their hatreds reaffirmed and not questioned. He is glad to profit from this market.

Chomsky is for lightweights who want their hatreds reaffirmed and not questioned. He is glad to profit from this market.

Excellent. So, after all of this, we've come full circle. Back to you calling others dumb for holding a different opinion to you and reasserting unsubstantiated claims as though repeating them enough times makes them fact.

You could've just made that clear and hung your hat on it from the outset without all the surrounding chaff. Thanks for nothing and wasting my time.

Oh and by the way, I don't fit your nice little square-box of a view of the "radical left"; I wasn't even born on the 60's. Thanks for trying to pigeon-hole me regardless, sorry I don't fit your nicely pre-packaged black 'n white view.

Ar

Ok, then explain to me why you find Chomsky's methodology convincing?

Originally Posted by Accidental Ajarn

Ar

Ok, then explain to me why you find Chomsky's methodology convincing?

AA,

What's the point? Honestly? I'd just be repeating myself at any rate and we're already going in circles.

You have, whether intentionally or not, created such a strict and inflexible set of criteria to qualify as "intelligent" that not only would one have to agree with everything you say to qualify, they'd actually have to be you. Obviously I fail on both counts so it strikes me as utterly pointless. Congrats then. You are, by your own definition, the smartest man you know.




"Be willing to recognize strength in arguments whose conclusions you reject and weakness in arguments whose conclusions you accept".

Originally Posted by Accidental Ajarn

I actually want to see a better world, not just enrich myself by feeding into the hatred and disillusions of others.

And we'd never see that better world following Chomsky's failed, delusional theories. Chomsky exists in that rarefied, cloistered world of so-called, 'academics' who's knowledge base doesn't extend outside those ivy-covered walls...

Rarefied,cloistered world of academics vs. in the trenches ,us or them, so called "reality" conservatives
Somewhere there must be a compromise,especially considering the state of the world at present.
Sounds simplistic yet is seems that talking things out beats blowing each other up!
Especially for those getting blown up.
Nothing Ivy League about that sentiment,just seems that the more entrenched people get with their ideas,ideals,beliefs,etc.the less receptive they become to other ideas etc.

AA at least comes up with material to support his position, (why he opposes Chomsky)
Ant, you're not coming up with anything, just casting aspersions at AA.
So

Originally Posted by Accidental Ajarn
Ar

Ok, then explain to me why you find Chomsky's methodology convincing?

If you CAN'T explain why you find it convincing, then just shut up.

Originally Posted by cujo

AA at least comes up with material to support his position, (why he opposes Chomsky)
Ant, you're not coming up with anything, just casting aspersions at AA.
So

Originally Posted by Accidental Ajarn
Ar

Ok, then explain to me why you find Chomsky's methodology convincing?

If you CAN'T explain why you find it convincing, then just shut up.

Cujo,

AA is merely posting screeds of material that he has Googled. By his own admission it is "hardly reliable or valid", much of it is irrelevant and repetative...

And I'm supposed to refute, point-by-point, all of it? As I said to him for each anti-Chomsky reference he cut 'n pastes I can counter with a pro-Chomsky cut 'n paste. What's the point of that other than clooging the thread with copious amounts of cut 'n pastes.

I reject your claim that I'm casting aspersions at AA, I've done nothing of the sort. I think you'll find it is he calling me 'stupid' because I don't agree with his opinions. Not the other way around.

[Edit]

Seems you have a horse in this race, it was hardly worth a red was it. You're guilty of the same thing you've accused me of. In the absence of your own reasoning and rationale perhaps you should take you own advice and "shut up".

Originally Posted by cujo

I was enjoying this debate but find your refusal to substantiate your opinion, explain what you base your opinion on, why you support chomskies theories, annoying, even though I don't have a horse in this race.so it was worth the red.

Debate? Where was that amongst the screeds of cut 'n pastes and AA repeating himself and calling others stupid? That was my point.

Do you, Ant, even have a position? If so, what is it and on what do you base it?

Have you even read the thread cujo? My position's pretty clear. Do you have a position or are you just interested in attacking me? C'mon, out with it then. Bit rich to accuse someone of not substantiating their position when you've added precisely zero to the debate yourself.

you've added precisely zero to the debate yourself.

Precisely, as I said, I don't have a horse in this race.
So are you going to explain yourself, or would it be beneath you and a waste of your time?

Originally Posted by cujo

Precisely, as I said, I don't have a horse in this race.

That's patently untrue. You were interested enough to interject yourself. And you seem to have an axe to grind and bare me some animosity.

So are you going to explain yourself, or would it be beneath you and a waste of your time?

I have explained myself in the context of what debate did take place, I see no further reason to repeat myself because you found that inadequate. And certainly not after your needlessly antagonistic and sarcastic comments.

I also asked AA several direct questions. These were either missed or outright ignored and in response he continued to cut ‘n paste. I let his continued name-calling and post-shifting pass and tried my best to be reasonable and polite in return.

And now I’ve got you on my back, attacking me, and adding not a single thing to the debate also. Nice one. Either add something constructive yourself or take your own advice because if you expect me to defend myself from your snide comments then sorry, I can't be arsed.

you seem to have an axe to grind and bare me some animosity.

Absolutely not, don't be so sensitive, I read the thread and although I understood why AA was taking his position, I couldn't see why you were taking yours.
For example "I agree with Chomskies theory that (yadayadayada) because........." I never saw anything like that from you, only digs at AA.Even his cut and paste jobs conveyed his point.
No animosity, just curious as to WHY you support Chomsky.
"I just do" isn't an answer.

it's called an ad hominem aproach

Absolutely not, don't be so sensitive

I'm not being sensitive. You may want to think on re-wording your approach however; telling people to shut up and sarcastic remarks is never going to get you far.

For example "I agree with Chomskies theory that (yadayadayada) because........." I never saw anything like that from you, only digs at AA.Even his cut and paste jobs conveyed his point.
No animosity, just curious as to WHY you support Chomsky.
"I just do" isn't an answer.

For the last time, I have already explained my reasoning in the context of the debate that took place. That this was lost or missed in the subsequent chaff of cut 'n pastes and AA calling me stupid is not my problem. If you can discern some rational and logical points from AA's posts then you're a better man than I; because I saw little amongst all that.

It wasn't me that shifted the posts so I fail to see how it's onerous on me now to go back and reinstate them to the original position.

AA and Cujo, get the fuck out of my fucking thread if you can't debate properly.

You are polluting,